Template talk:ScientologySeries/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Holy Crap this thing is huge.

When do we sub-template it, and are there WP best practices for handling such a case? Ronabop 08:14, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a great plan. Did you get any further on it? Misou 04:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Actually, it might be best to create a separate horizontal template as an option, to go at the footer of articles... Smee 04:33, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
My first impulse is to break it apart at controversy, but to due to the contentious nature of the topic, I'd prefer to hear feedback and other ideas. Ronabop 05:41, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
Please explain what you mean by break it apart at controversy? Smee 05:44, 14 March 2007 (UTC).

(Deindent) Ok, what I've seen since the creation of this template has been a push/pull effort with all of the involved editors trying to work out the various additions, deletions, and consolidations to the template in order to best navigate the topic(s) involved. Many of the difficulties (to my recollections) have been *primarily* in the controversy section, and/or in choices about presenting fairly controversial subject matter in other template sections. One idea is to have two templates, one of which is about Scientology in general (ScientologySeries), and one which is about the controversies, scandals, whateveryouwannacall it, maybe named "ScientologyControversy". So, on the main Scientology page, maybe have both templates, maybe on the Lisa McPherson page, use the controversy template, on the ARC/Straightwire pages, use the generic series template, etc. That way, rather than having to make a lot of hard choices about whether or not Xenu.net and A.R.S. and Clambake (and all the other issues that are under semi-constant debate) should be navigable to from the generic template, we have one template for one field of interest (Scientology as a belief/practice), and another template for another field of interest (Controversy about Scientology). This would likely move (by my estimates) roughly 25 links *out* of the first series template, and reduce some of the contention over whether or not somebody like Lisa or something like "Altered Texts" belongs in our (formerly) single Scientology articles template. That being said, I have some concerns about my idea:

  1. We need to avoid a walled garden, the two templates should always have links to each other.
  2. While this will reduce the template size (and use) down in many cases, it will likely add debates as to *which* template a link should go into (if any), instead of "does this belong in the ScientologySeries template."
  3. I estimated 25 of our current links are "controversy", others will differ with my estimate.
  4. We should anticipate debates about proper application and usage of each template, i.e. which articles get "Series", which get "Controversy", and which get both.
  5. I have seen no precedent for such a similar split. Either this is breaking new ground or just... well... breaking.

Ronabop 05:59, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Though I admire your gumption to suggest it, I also agree with you that it will cause controversy, probably too much controversy than it's worth. The template has been in existence for a while now as a standalone single template, and I think that is how it should stay. To say that the "controversy" issues are only related to each other, and not to the other articles as well, is to severly de-emphasize all of them simultaneously. Smee 06:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I totally agree that making each area of study into a template is a challenge, which is why I was concerned about point one, but I'm not sure I agree with the de-emphasize idea. I would predict that within 6 months, the controversy template would be a big, honed, entity unto itself. What would definitely change though, is that people mildly interested in learning about, oh, MEST might not be exposed (via a template) to a great deal of criticism of the church, and people learning about Lisa might not be exposed to a great deal of articles on CoS public works, literacy projects, etc. As I said: "I'd prefer to hear feedback and other ideas". :) Ronabop 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Picture

Why is a picture needed at all in the template? What it has is not a picture or symbol of Scientology. The average person would not know what it is. Steve Dufour 15:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The average person can click on the picture to find out more, and then read the article E-meter. Smee 16:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC).
Why not a picture of Tom Cruise? He is a much more well-known symbol of Scientology than the E-meter. :-) Steve Dufour 17:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
On a second thought, maybe a picture of Hubbard. Would there be any objections to this? Steve Dufour 13:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Yes. There aren't too many pictures of Hubbard unencumbered by copyright issues. (As well, CoS/RTC frequently suffers from the belief that they own the rights to all pictures of Hubbard.) AndroidCat 14:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
How about the picture in the Scientology article? -Steve Dufour 14:31, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Sorry. I see that it is fair use. It probably wouldn't work. Steve Dufour 14:33, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
On the third thought I will give it a try and see if anyone objects. I don't think the CoS will sue me. :-) Steve Dufour 15:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
You are probably right AC. Steve Dufour 15:39, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Please read Template talk:ScientologySeries#Logo removal The rules are stricter on use of images in templates. AndroidCat 15:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Especially with these types of organizations... Smee 15:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
  • What about an image used on the cover of Dianetics ? This particular image is public domain, and is thus a free image:

View at dusk of the young Pu'u 'O'o cinder-and-spatter cone, with fountain approximately 40 m high, during episode 5 (photo by G.E. Ulrich, 6/29/83, GU6830A) This image is in the public domain because it contains materials that originally came from the United States Geological Survey.

Anyone else other than Justanother have an opinion on this? Thanks. Smee 16:09, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

    • Smee already knows (see thread) that I find the use of that image offensive as it has been plastered everywhere on the internet not to represent Dianetics but to represent the Xenu story. So no. As the Scientologist here, I think that the project should be sensitive to my feelings., not the desire of critics a critic to have their his little inside joke. Give it a rest please, Smee. Your blatant POV-pushing is getting old. --Justanother 16:20, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

NOTE: Personal attacks stricken as per Wikipedia:Remove personal attacks. Thanks. Smee 16:28, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

  • Note - No PA, just fact. You can dispute the fact but not remove it. --Justanother 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
  • Note - To clarify. Smee, you are breaking the rules here by POV-pushing and propagandizing. My mention of such rule-breaking and characterizing it as I care to is not a PA. --Justanother 16:38, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from others on the image similar to the cover of Dianetics

  • I asked for comments from others who have not voiced their opinions on the usage of an image very similar to the cover of the book Dianetics, and yet a free public domain, very high quality image, that was selected previously as a Wikipedia:featured picture, which means that members of the community have identified it as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia. Let's hear what other individuals (including other Scientologists on the project) think of the usage of an image similar to the cover of Dianetics in Scientology-associated templates. These comments can go below. Those that have already voiced their opinions previously can comment above. This is an informal request for comment, however if needed we can go to a formal RFC later. Thanks. Smee 16:24, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • Yes, it is a fine picture of a volcano. Are you trying to misrepresent that the community has somehow already sanctioned this for use as the "symbol" of Scientology or indeed having any relation to Dianetics or Scientology at all. Because otherwise, I do not see much point of your great bold mention of it as as one of the finest images on the English Wikipedia. You are an unsubtle propagandist, Smee. --Justanother 16:34, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • Smee, I can call it propaganda if I care to. That is a comment on content and, by extension, I can call you a propagandist. And by observation, I can call you an unsubtle propagandist. No PA. Just my take on your content. --Justanother 16:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
      • And Smee, the only place it is inappropriate for me to comment would be inside your remark so as to confuse the reader as to who is saying what. This is not such a case. Other than that you are NotTheBossOfHere. But out of courtesy, I will not argue with others that comment below if you will do the same. Thanks. --Justanother 17:01, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • NOTE: - This space is for those who have not already commented on the use of this image as requested to state comments below. If other users cannot comply, I will create an RFC. Thanks. Smee 16:40, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Request for Comment - use of Volcano image in ScientologySeries template

  • Template talk:ScientologySeries -- Is an image of a Volcano an appropriate image for the Template:ScientologySeries? 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).

Comments from previously involved editors

Comment from Smee
  • The image in question is shown above. It is a public domain free image as a product of the United States government, and is a Featured picture, as well as of a higher quality than the currently used image, which is not a featured picture. It was selected as picture of the day for both January 24, 2005, and April 12, 2006. The other user in question feels that this image is somehow offensive, however a similar image is used very prominently on every copy of the book Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health. Smee 17:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
    • I will respond to Justanother's comments in my space here. I ask that he respond below. I would also like to hear from other Scientologists and other uninvolved editors on this issue. Here is a Google images search for "Scientology volcano" The majority of the images displayed are prominent pictures of a volcano on the cover of the book Dianetics, which is produced by Scientology. I would like to hear what other editors have to say on this... Thanks. Smee 17:23, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
      • This does not get around the simple fact that the book which Scientology states is published in the highest number of languages worldwide, Dianetics, in fact does have a Volcano very prominently on the cover of thousands if not millions of copies of their books. Let us cease this back and forth and see what others think. Thanks. Smee 17:45, 15 March 2007 (UTC).
        • Uhm, I assume the church has a media apparatus. Has anybody tried to contact them and ask what they would prefer? Ronabop 06:09, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
          • The trademarks belong to the RTC. Anyone have DM's phone number handy? AndroidCat 06:27, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
            • "Media Relations staff members are available 24/7 to answer your questions. Our phone number is (323) 960-3500 Our fax number is (323) 960-3508 Or email mediarelationsdir@scientology.net" [1] Ronabop 05:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)


Comment from Justanother
  • I have already covered with Smee (see thread) that I find the use of that image offensive as it has been plastered everywhere on the internet not to represent Dianetics but to represent the Xenu story. So no. As the Scientologist here, I think that the project should be sensitive to my feelings, not what I perceive as the desire of a critic of Scientology to have his little inside joke. And yes, it is certainly a nice picture of a volcano. Let's stick with the e-meter please. It is sufficiently recognizable, suggestive of Scientology, and carries no such broadly disseminated negative connotation. --Justanother 17:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
    • OK, Smee, I will honor your request, not because I have to but out of courtesy to you. Smee, you count funny. Google volcano+Scientology images, I see three books and three xenu volcanos (plus one blocked by filter). . Google volcano+xenu and you see three books and five xenu volcanos (plus three blocked by filter). Note that I have a filter here at my office (Websense Enterprise) so some bigot sites are blocked but they are probably Xenu volcanos, too? Not going to work, Smee. --Justanother 17:42, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Comment from ChrisO
  • This has been discussed before (see #New picture? above). My comments there are still relevant - let me repeat them: "The volcano is potentially ambiguous - it could equally be used as the symbol of vulcanology and it takes some knowledge of Scientology to understand its associations (Xenu etc). It's also potentially controversial, given Scientologists' reticence on the subject. On the other hand, the e-meter is exclusively associated with Scientology and is directly linked with its core activity, auditing. It's a much more relevant and less controversial symbol of the topic."
  • The problem we have is that because all the symbols are trademarked, we can't use them in the template. We can't use a symbol of Scientology - we have to use something to symbolise Scientology. That's why I favoured using the e-meter - it's uniquely associated with Scientology and doesn't have any negative connotations. -- ChrisO 22:47, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Comments from previously uninvolved editors

Comment from Steve Dufour

As a non-Scientologist, I do not find the picture of the E-meter to be a symbol of Scientology. Besides, it is a really dull picture. On the other hand a volcano is a recognizable symbol, it was on the cover of Time after all. I don't know what to say about the Xenu issue. I don't believe that Moses really parted the Red Sea but I don't think Jewish people would be offended by a picture of it. I was going to suggest this picture by the National Parks Service, but Smee beat me to it: Steve Dufour 20:56, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Another option would be to not have a picture at all. Steve Dufour 20:59, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
Another option would be not to have a box at all and put the other subjects at the bottom. Misou 02:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
Two boxes, including horizontal box choices, has come up a lot. Doesn't fix what image is, or is not, in those boxes, though. Did you perhaps mean no template and Categories only? Ronabop 06:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Why is a picture needed at all? Am I missing something? Thanks. Steve Dufour 17:44, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.